Johnstone v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 02 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 14472.,14472. |
| Citation | 191 S.E. 223 |
| Parties | JOHNSTONE et al. v. MATTHEWS et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Newberry County; H. F. Rice, Judge.
Action by Alan Johnstone and another, as executors of the will of Clara M. McCrary, deceased, against William E. Matthews, on whose request Clara B. Matthews was made a party defendant. From an order dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Alan Johnstone and R. Aubrey Harley, both of Newberry, for appellants.
Price & Poag, of Greenville, and B. V. Chapman, of Newberry, for respondents.
On April 13, 1928, as appears from the record for appeal, B. C. Matthews and T. K. Johnstone borrowed on their promissory note, indorsed by Mrs. Clara B. Matthews, $20,000 from the estate of Clara M. McCrary. This note, the due date of which was December 13, 1928, was never paid, either by the makers or by the indorser. On June 20, 1931, Mrs. Matthews executed and delivered to her son, William E. Matthews, a mortgage for $8,500 on certain real estate owned by her in fee in Newberry county. On July 31, 1934, a suit, in which Mrs. Matthews was the sole defendant, was brought by the executors of the McCrary estate for the collection of the note which she had indorsed; and a verdict was obtained against her, upon which judgment was duly entered. On December 21, 1934, the present action was begun against William E. Matthews to set aside, as void and fraudulent, the mortgage above referred to. It was alleged that the "mortgage was given by the mortgagor and induced and accepted by the defendant, with knowledge of the said debt due these plaintiffs, and with intent to delay and defraud the plaintiffs and to defeat collection of the said note; and if the mortgage is allowed to stand as a lien, it will render the judgment of plaintiffs uncollectible."
The answer of the defendant expressly denied all charges of fraud contained inthe complaint and alleged that the mortgage in question, and two other mortgages executed by Mrs. Matthews, were bona fide and for valuable consideration, and that they were given for the sole purpose of securing the mortgagor's honest debts. It was asked, among other things, that Clara B. Matthews be made a party to the action so that all matters between her, the plaintiffs and the defendant might "be adjudged in one proceeding." This was done by a proper order of the court, and that defendant, upon coming in, adopted the answer of her codefendant, William E. Matthews, and joined in the prayer thereof.
Thereafter the plaintiffs served the defendants with a written notice that they would move the court, at the time therein named, for an order requiring certain issues of fact--designated as Nos. 1 and 2-- to be tried by a jury. The defendants then gave notice to the plaintiffs that they would, upon the call of such motion, move to refer the case to the master or a special master, and should this motion be denied, they would then ask the court to frame an additional issue of fact--which appears as No. 3--to be submitted to the jury.
By consent of counsel, the matter was heard at Greenwood by his honor, Judge Stoll, on April 8, 1935. The motion of the defendants to refer was refused, and the case was ordered docketed on calendar one, "for the trial of the following issues of fact by a jury, at the Court due to convene at Newberry the fourth Monday in April, 1935, " or, as agreed by counsel, at some convenient subsequent term, if it could not be heard then:
It appears that the case was not reached in April, 1935, but was tried the following November, the Honorable II. F. Rice presiding. The court instructed the jury that their answer to question No. 1 should be "Yes, " and as to that issue they found accordingly. Their answer as to issue 2 was "Yes"; and as to issue 3, "No." The defendants then made a motion to set aside the verdict upon the grounds (1) that the findings of the jury were not supported by any evidence; (2) that their answer to the third question was directly in the face of all the evidence in the case; and (3) that their findings, under the facts and circumstances, were not binding upon the court.
Judge Rice took the matter under advisement and later wrote an order asserting the validity of the mortgage and dismissing the complaint. He found as a matter of fact that the mortgage was bona fide and was given to secure debts justly due William E. Matthews by his mother, and further found as a matter of law that there was no fraud in the transaction complained of. From this order the plaintiffs appealed.
We will consider first exception 3, which we think raises the main question presented by the appeal. This exception is as follows: "That the trial Judge erred in holding that a verdict of the jury in such cases and in the instant case is only to aid the Court in reaching a proper solution of the questions at issue and that the presiding Judge may accept the findings of the jury or reject them as his judgment may dictate, the error being that once the issues are framed and submitted in a proper case to a jury their findings are conclusive thereon unless there be no evidence in the record to support them."
In 1890, the Legislature passed an act (20 St. at Large, p. 695), now appearing as section 593 of the Code of 1932, which provided, among other things, that in all equity causes "instituted in the Courts of Common Pleas of this State, the presiding judge may, in his discretion, cause to be framed an issue or issues of fact, to be tried by a jury"; and that "the findings of fact upon such issues by the jury shall be conclusive of the same: Provided, That the presiding judge may grant new trials therein, according to the practice in other jury trials." To sustain their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Broome v. Travelers Ins. Co.
-
Neal v. Darby, 0207
...conscience of trial court, Supreme Court was at liberty to "determine facts" contrary to findings made by jury). Cf. Johnstone v. Matthews, 183 S.C. 360, 191 S.E. 223 (1937) (language indicates the "any evidence" standard does not apply to findings by a jury to which issues are referred for......
-
North American Rescue Prods. Inc. v. Richardson
...to enter an order consistent with the jury's findings if there was any evidence to support such findings. See Johnstone v. Matthews, 183 S.C. 360, 366, 191 S.E. 223, 225 (1937) (holding when issues of fact in equity cases are tried to a jury and findings of fact are made, if there is any ev......
-
Greenwood Lumber Co. v. Cromer
...succeeding Circuit Judge before whom the cause comes up for trial at a later term is not bound to be governed thereby. Johnstone v. Matthews, 183 S.C. 360, 191 S.E. 223; In re Nightingale's Estate, 182 S.C. 527, 189 S.E. 890. The decision in these cases rests upon the principle that issues ......